Why is evolution taught as the absolute theory without any alternatives?

Question

They say life evolved on Earth from a single -cell organism which later turned into a sea creature and then a land creature. However there is absolutely no sure way to prove this right .It is only "assumed" that this is what might have happened.The big bang happened and there are 3 pieces of evidence to show how the universe formed. There is no real evidence showing the evolution of an ameoba into a sea creature. Why then is evolution forced upon every one ? why are other theories of lifes emergence not studied or discussed?

Answer 1

LOL I love when the trolls come a calling about this.

Anyway to answer....because all the scientific data points to Evolution.  There is no scientifically valid "alternative" at all in any way.  All other "alternatives" have ZERO empirical evidence supporting them.

That is why those alternatives are not taught in science class.

They are though, taught in religion and philosophy classes where they belong.

The other "theories" are theories as common terms apply but they are not theories by science standards since they HAVE been looked at and tested and found FALSE.  THAT is why they are not discussed, because they have been proven wrong..and until someone can give some evidence proving right no one will waste their time with dead ends.

If you really want these disproven hypothesis discussed...do the work, find evidence supporting them and submit to a peer review

Rick R> Um..sorry you'r wrong.  There IS no micro vs macro Evolution.  There is only Evolution...micro vs macro is nothing but a different timescale.

Newton was a knight that had offended the church with gravity..and was hundreds of years before Evolution..so never had a chance to debate it let alone say it was wrong...so that is a lie

The fossil record is not disputed by any objective person and there are many many transitional fossils

Answers in Genesis is a website of God, inteligence, decency hating scumbags who lie through their teeth

Creationists do not use science at all, in any way, which is why the scientific community has never accepted any of the so called "evidence" the creationist side comes up with like "Well Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon because we all know floods carve thru rock in small areas instead of washing over the entire ground".

Answer 2

To answer your primary question, for the same reason that no other alternative theories to gravity are being taught, as well as no alternatives to the germ theory of sickness. Because there are no credible scientific theories to challenge darwinian evolution. Its that simple. No other hypothesis has withstood the harsh scrutiny of the scientific community to be honored with the label of a scientific theory to combat it.  Darwinian Evolution has gone through this rigorous scrutiny for 150 years, and continues to do so successfully every single day.

Also, no one ever said we evolved from amoeba. The exact course of our evolution is difficult to piece together and we may have gotten some aspects of it wrong here or there, but nothing in science is based on blind assumptions. Every single bit of evolutionary history that science has put together has been a process. Scientists are basically detectives looking at evidence and analyzing it. We are at the point where we know who the proverbial "killer" is and exactly the methods and tools he used, but we may never know the exact length of his fingernails at the time of the murder or exactly how long his hair was, but we know what he did and for the most part how he did it.

Just because we dont know the exact details, we are supposed to abandon the theory or teach hypothesis' that havent gone through the scientific method??

You, in all likeliness dont know how gravity works,  but you dont assume that the theory is wrong because you dont know it forwards and backwards. Why is evolution different? The only difference between evolution, cell theory, gravity theory, germ theory of disease, etc is that people are intolerant of evolution due to religion and misunderstanding.

Answer 3

Here is my usual answer to evolution questions...

Evolution is built on lies and deceptions. Only people that refuse to open their eyes and see the truth can believe in it.

Here is a small part of that truth...

Evolution teaches that we came from animals.

Evolution teaches that animals came from Amphibians.

Evolution teaches that Amphibians come from sea life.

Sea life from single-cell life.

Single cell life from chemicals.

Chemicals from rocks that were rained on for years.

Conclusion, all live came from rocks.

Which is more likely, that an intelligent created life, or that nothing did, and what about bio-genesis?

The Evolutionist base their belief in Evolution on the fact that “Micro-evolution” is true. What they do not tell is that there are 6 different meanings to the word Evolution, and only “Micro-evolution” has ever been observed.

1) Cosmic Evolution (Never Observed) The creation of time, space and matter. (The Big Bang)

2) Chemical Evolution (Never Observed) Production of heavy elements from hydrogen.

3) Steller Evolution (Never Observed) The formation of stars, planets, and solar systems.

4) Organic Evolution (Never Observed) Life from random chemical.

5) Macro-Evolution (Never Observed) One animal mutating into another.

6) Micro-Evolution. (Observed) Slight changes in a species. A better name for this would be “Adaptation”

The Sun is Shrinking.

o.1% would mean a half-life of 10,000 years, so 10,000 years ago, it would be twice as big as it is now, 20,000 years, 4 times as big, 30,000 years, 8 times as big...

The inverse square law means the gravity would be 64 times then what it is now. What would it be in 65 million years?

Carbon dating is based on 3 assumptions that can not be proven.

1. The amount of carbon-14 in the body is the same as in the air.

2. The amount that was in it at the time of death is the same as in the air today.

3. Nothing has removed or washed-out any of the carbon-14

4. The rate of decay is a constant.

1,3,and 4 are assumptions. There is no way to prove them.

2 was proven wrong at lest twice, never proven right. The amount of Carbon-14 in the air is still increasing.

The Geological Columns.

Evolutionist believe that the Geological Columns prove that the Earth is millions of years old because each layer is a different age. What they do not tell is that the layers are not even. There could be 50 layers in 1 spot, 30 layers a mile away. And 80 layers another mile.

Also they do not tell that there are trees and animals buried in the layers crossing dozens of layers and some time upside down.

There is only 2 possibilities for this...

1) The plant or animal was there for centuries waiting to be buried before it decayed. Many of the trees would have to balance upside-down, and many animal, such as whales, would have to balance on their tail fins against wind, rain, and vibrations from other animals walking/running for centuries.

2. The plant or animal was buried quickly. This would require that they be under water since only water makes dirt settle in layers quickly.

The Van-Allen Radiation Belt.

The Earths Magnetic field is slowly getting weaker. It has a half-life of 1450 years. This means that it is losing ½ of its strength every 1450 years.

Time Magnetic strength

2,000 AD 1

555 AD 2

900BC 4

2,350BC 8

3,800BC 16

About 6000 years ago (The time of Genesis) it would have been about 16 times as strong as it is now. A magnet field of that power would stop the venom of snakes from being harmful.

About 4000 to 4500 years ago (The time of The Great Flood) it would have been about 8 times as strong as now.

About 2000 years ago (The time Of Jesus, The Christ) it would have been about 3 times as strong as now.

Now, lets see how strong it would have been just 50,000 years ago.

5,250BC 32

6,700BC 64

---

50,200BC-68,719,476,736

Sixty eight Billion, Seven hundred and nineteen Million, Four hundred and seventy six thousand, seven hundred and thirty six times what is it now.

What would it have been 65,000,000 years ago?

Many Evolutionist claim that the reason the Earths magnetic field is getting weaker is because it is reversing. They say that it has reversed several times in history. If this was true then that would mean that every time it reversed, there would be a time of neutral magnetic field. This would mean that there was no magnetic field at these times. If there is no magnetic field, then there is no Van-Allen Radiation belt, and all the X-Rays, Gamma-Rays, and other forms of radiation from the sun would hit the earth directly, destroying all life on the land, and making the oceans hot enough to boil cooking all life in the waters. Evolution would have to start all over after every reversal.

How do stars form?

There are many ideas about this subject, but no way to know for sure.

Some believe that stars form from clouds of gases collecting together. As they compress closer together, they get hotter and finally ignite into a star.

This has been proven to be impossible. As the gases collect, there would be 2 forces at work. The gravity pulling them together, and the pressures pushing them apart. The pressure pushing them apart would be between 50 and 100 times stronger then the gravity pulling them together. This would be like a balloon inflating itself from the gravity of the air inside pulling more air in with no help from a outside source.

Another possible explanation would be that a star or supernova explodes close to the gas cloud.

The problem with this idea is that the shock wave would not compress the gases, it would sweep then away and scatter them even more then they are so that they can not collect. Look at a leaf blower.

Another possible explanation is that 20 stars explode at the same time all around this gas cloud.

The problem with this idea is that 20 stars would have to die for 1 to form. 400 stars would have to die for those 20 to exist, and 8,000 would have to die for those 400 to exist, and 160,000 to make them. How far back can it go, and how did the first generation of stars from?

The several stages of evolution have all been proven to be wrong.

1) Lucy.

A 3 foot skeleton of a chimp, the “evidence” that she was becoming human was her knee joint, which was found more then a mile away, and over 200 feet in the earth.

2) Heidelberg Man.

Built by a jaw bone that was considered to be quite human.

3) Nebraska Man.

Built from a pigs tooth

4) Piltdown Man.

The jaw was a modern ape

5) Peking Man.

Lived 500,000 years ago, but no remains were ever found.

6) Neanderthal Man.

Old Man with arthritis.

7) New Guinea man.

? I have never been able to find any info except that this one was found in New Guinea.

8) Gro-Magnon Man.

Skeletal Structure is exactly the same as modern man.

PS: the only diploma Darwin got other then Highschool was a docteran of divinity..

Your GREAT SCIENTIST was not a scientist at all, he was a preacher.

Answer 4

There are a few things that need to be clarified about this discussion on evolution. I am sorry this is so long, but to be sure there was no misunderstanding, it had to be.

A person can only know the truth about Evolution vs. Creation by examining the facts presented by BOTH sides, and decide which is true by using logic and what is known about reality.

I highly recommend people look at the facts for themselves, instead of just accepting whatever they are told in school and by scientists. Scientists, regardless of their field of expertise, learned nothing you could not know for yourself if you just read carefully the facts and used logical reasoning. For example, how many of you are capable of describing the process in which amino acids are used to make proteins in the body? Remember to describe the manner in which other components are involved, such as enzymes, catalysts, and genetic information.  Once you understand this process, describe how enzymes (made of protein) are made before proteins!!!

It is true that evolution is not the theory of how matter came to be. However, evolution IS used in describing how all life today has changed over time from some primordial matter. The word evolution simply refers to the evolving change (evolution) of something over a period of time. The word evolution can apply to anything that has changed, including things created by people, such as the evolution of transportation, architecture, music, and clothing throughout history.

Evolution in regards to biology is divided into two categories, microevolution versus macroevolution.

· Microevolution is the change occurring at the microscopic level (change in DNA sequence due to various factors) within a species (a select gene pool).

· Macroevolution is the change that occurs jointly between different species or gene pools.

· An example of microevolution is the famous British study about the peppered moths. Microevolution is also viewed as a species ability to adapt to various factors.

· An example of macroevolution is the theory of “Common Descent,” which states that all living things have a shared ancestry, A→B→C→D and so on.

  Most people who do not believe in evolution are not arguing microevolution, but macroevolution. Any person who doubts this has never seriously listened to or read what a creationist has had to say then, and I am talking about a reputable creationist, such as those of the Institute of Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and the Creation Research Society.

There are several famous scientists throughout history that had firm religious beliefs, which included the belief in a creation and rejected the idea of evolution. Sir Issac Newton, and you all know who he was, Raymond V. Damadian (inventor of the MRI machine), and Sir Ernst Boris Chain (Nobel Prize for Penicillin) were creationists.

Most of the evidence that is used to prove evolution is really only evidence for microevolution. And the evidence of the fossil record is so debated, that it is not limited to just creationists and evolutionists, even the evolutionists argue about some of it’s validity (even Darwin himself). Since most people are aware of the claims made by evolutionists, there are some resources from creationists that use REAL science to present facts listed below.

***REBUTTAL***

Sorry for this also being so long. Also, I did not provide the names of scientists so people would believe in creation, but to show that there are real scientists who do not believe in evolution.

This is to clarify the arguments made against my statements of: 1) Isaac Newton was against the belief of evolution, 2) micro vs. macroevolution, and 3) how evolutionist disagree about the validity or use of the geological record (fossils).

It is true that Isaac Newton died 132 years before Darwin publish his book Origin of Species, however, Darwin was not the first person to think of an atheistic evolutionary theory of the origin of life. Paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn (an evolutionist) stated in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin" that when looking into the history of evolution he “was led back to the Greek natural philosophers and I was astonished to find how many of the pronounced and basic features of the Darwinian theory were anticipated even as far back as the seventh century B.C.”.  It was in response to these types of theories that Newton was referring to in his book "The Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy." Newton in his book wrote “Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.”

In regards to Ernst Boris Chain, Dr. Chain was aware of penicillin resistant bacteria (the bacteria creates penicillinase) and actually worked on this problem and created penicillinase-stable penicillins (read more at his biography on the Nobel Prize website http://nobelprize.org/ ). Even knowing about this adaptation (microevolution) in bacteria, Dr. Chain still believed against evolution (macroevolution).

In Shaz’s own words regarding his statement that there is no difference between micro and macroevolution, “Um..sorry you'r wrong.” Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which is absolutely evolutionary in beliefs) states the difference between micro and macroevolution in their publication about “Science, Christianity, and the quest for understanding" (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Dose...

In regards to Shaz’s statement about the dispute of fossils, “Um..sorry you'r wrong” again. British zoologist Mark Ridley (an evolutionist) stated in the magazine New Scientist “the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species, Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies… In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, use the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” French Zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé (an anti-Darwinian evolutionist) arguing against Ridley, stated in his book "Evolution of Living Organisms" that “evolution is revealed only through fossil forms…Only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé even goes even further in his book as to state that he believes biology is unable to provide evidence of evolution, and  that only paleontology can.

Evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould founded Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to try and explain the sudden appearance of different “species” in the fossil record. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett actually disagree with Eldredge and Gould on certain issues (look at the basic criticisms listed on wikipedia under Punctuated Equilibrium).

Answer 5

It is taught as the correct theory because all of the experimental and observational evidence we have support it, and there is nothing to support 'alternatives'.    The bible is just not scientific.  'Intelligent design' IS evolution, only with a the premise that bio diversity was directed by God rather than by the process of natural selection.

When we teach science, we only teach what science tells us.  We do not teach what the sacred texts of any particular religion tell us.  We don't teach 'alternatives' that require untestable faith in the divine.  We don't teach that there must be magic to explain the unexplained.  

And one more thing - Evolution does not address the question of how life emerged - it only addresses the question of how the abundant diversity of life we see today came to be.

Answer 6

At this point in time, there is no sure way to prove any theory right. The only theory that has scientific evidence is evolution. Everything else is based on the argument that since nothing has been proven and its complicated, it must have been created. Now this doesn't automatically make evolution fact. If I witnessed a scientific argument for Creationism that could explain everything that evolution is in the process of explaining I would have no problem switching belief (I say in the process because there is a lot still left t o be discovered)  

I don't usually like to comment about other posts but i felt compelled.

As Rick R stated that Newton was a creationist as evidence to believe in it. He also lists the inventor of the MRI and penicillin.

First, Newton was dead long before evolution was even hypothesized so of course Newton wouldn't have believed in it. I have no argument against Raymond V. Damadian , but for Ernst Boris Chain, (now this is only opinion and speculation) had he witnessed bacteria "evolving" to deal with penicillin and other anti-microbial substances he might have changed his mind. And as a side note Rick, you stated that one should not listen to scientists just because they are scientists yet you use a whole paragraph stating that creationism must work because a few scientists believed in it.

Answer 7

I cannot understand how you agree with the Big Bang theory and the evidence supporting it, but reject the theory of evolution which has much more evidence behind it. This page

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

has no less than 29 separate pieces of evidence for evolution, and the objections moved to each piece of evidence are given a reply.

Scholastic programs suffer from a chronic lack of time; there is never enough hours to delve into each subject thoroughly. Students get the bare basics thrown at them with the hope that something will stick. In this condition, teaching them three separate hypotheses, one currently accepted, one outdated and one untested, will leave many of them hopelessly confused about which is which.

Evolution is not 'forced upon everyone' anymore than geography is 'forced upon everyone': you're free to disagree that the capital of the United States is Washington DC, but others don't have to 'respect' your wrong assumption. Other theories, such as Hollow Earth, have been proposed over the years: should we study and discuss them too?

Answer 8

Theories taught in school are those based on studies with evidenced support. The theory of evolution are based on some archaeological discoveries of fossils that "suggests" what were are forced to believe but not necessarily true. There are some scientists and explorer that believe some old scriptures and other discoveries suggests that we are a result of experimentation (cloning) of some more advance beings from million years ago -  this could be true and so the evolution theory. It is proved that inhabitants of a certain environment adopt its habitat... It's just connecting dots, anybody can have their own theory.

Answer 9

Obviously you have no real concept of what evolution is...

You must have been in church when they gave that lecture...

I don't recall any scientist saying we evolved from an amoeba..

On the other hand... There is absolutely NO evidence in existence of any kind that supports any other possibile alternative... other than words in a book written by men thousands of years ago.

Hmmm... which do you choose  ?

Answer 10

As others have noted, the emergence of life and the later diversity of life are two distinct areas of study. Evolution is the science of biodiversity, or how simple life became the vast and diverse organisms we see today. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolutionary theory. See the attached link for an easy to read sample of evidence.

It is also worth noting the term theory and how it is used. In everyday conversation a theory is a guess or idea. In science a theory is an accepted explanation for a body of evidence. You cannot have a scientific theory without lots of evidence. A scientific idea is called a hypothesis until it is shown to be supported by real evidence and has been accepted by the scientific community.

Answer 11

We have just as much scientific information for evolution as we have for gravity.  Most things in science that are taken as fact today are not 'absolute fact' but 'theories' because they cannot be proven to a guaranteed degree, no matter what.  So while there can be any number of 'theories' regarding how we came about, evolution is, by far, the one that gives most evidence.

Remember, plate tectonics was laughed out of the scientific community not more than 80 years ago, and only became accepted in the 60's-70's.  Yet until we produce a time machine and go back and watch formation, we can only use science to come up with such theories and try to prove them to the best of our current abilities.

Answer 12

evolution does not have to do with the origins of life, thats biogenesis, but evolution is taught as fact because we have scientific evidence for it, just like all other things taught as fact in science

Answer 13

I know there are some of the peices of the puzzle missing, but the evolution theory is the best we have right now to explain how life developed on the planet. Sure, it isn't an absolutely "iron-clad" proof, we don't have all the data, and probably never will. At least evolution is based on scientific principles of developing theories to explain observations and then looking for evidence to confirm these theories.

This is a lot more scientific than the various religious groups that just expect people to believe the various stories they  propose with no scientific evidence whatsoever. Generally, these theories are not covered in schools because they are not based on scientific proof. Also, because these stories pretty much fall within the definition of religion, most school systems don't want to get involved in it. If they were going to cover it, to avoid the appearance of giving preferential treatment to specific religions, they would have to teach all the different variations of the origen of life proposed by all the major religions. Just think of all the extra homework you would have to do!

I would suggest, remember the evolution stuff long enough to pass the finals, then you can go ahead and believe whatever you want!

Answer 14

Because it is true.